Within moments the media, politicians and security experts were firmly identifying the Nice truck attack as an act of terrorism. Moreover some were calling it an act of “Islamic terrorism.” This may well be the case of course but they could not possibly be certain of that before making such statements. Quite obviously this suggests an agenda.
Speaking only moments after the event, just as he did following the murders in Paris last November, President Hollande and other political leaders have used the Nice truck attack to reaffirm the war footing of their administration and to increase control of the their population as a whole.
“A horror has come down on France again, the terrorist character [of the attack] cannot be denied”.
“It is all of France which is under threat of Islamic terrorism.”
The French response will demonstrate “real force and military action in Syria and Iraq”
“We are at war with terrorists who want to strike us at any cost and who are extremely violent.”
[Bernard Cazeneuve – French interior minister]
“We must redouble our efforts to defeat these murderers who want to destroy our way of life”
[Teresa May – British Prime Minister]
It must be noted that, at the time of writing this post, no terrorist organisation has yet claimed responsibility for the Nice truck attack.
One of the French government’s first responses was to extend the period of “the state of emergency” in France. These emergency measures were due to end in 11 days but have now been extended for a further three months. French civil liberties are severely impacted upon during the state of emergency.
It enables the French government to put people under house arrest and to carry out police raids without the prior authorization of a judge (reviewed evidence in other words). It also includes the banning of demonstrations and restrictions on peoples freedom of movement.
Once again we are seeing the knee jerk reaction of the state and its media apparatus. This consistently seems to be in a specific direction. Frequently these awful events are used as reason to increase the rhetoric of “war” and to curtail civil liberties.
Firstly what is the point of this rhetoric? If it is to stop such acts happening it clearly doesn’t work. Perhaps they are designed to reassure people that their government is in charge? However, whilst violent crime rates are falling across the west, acts of political violence are increasing.
As a critical thinker I reserves the right to suspend judgment on the circumstances surrounding this slaughter. I do not doubt that many innocent people were killed and injured by someone who was determined to cause mass casualties. I feel nothing but sorrow for the loss of these innocent men, women and children.
However history shows us that our own governments and supra governmental organisations have manipulated murderous individuals and orchestrated such events frequently in the past.
So how can critical thinkers, concerned about the political capital that some will make from the Nice truck attack, respond? Especially when any such attempt will be vigorously ignored by the mainstream media (wherever possible) and undermined as “tin foil hat conspiracy theories” if and when they deem it necessary.
This is made easier for them by virtue of the fact that the critical thinking, social media movement, whilst it has some notable leading voices such as James Corbett, Sibel Edmonds, Dr Paul Graig Robert, Jerry Kroth and others, lacks the ability to present a coherent response.
Added to this, within the “truth movement,” there are those on both the far right and far left of the political divide, such as Alex Jones, who seek to exploit genuine scepticism for their own political aims and, in some cases, financial gain and self-aggrandisement.
As a member of many of these online communities I am also aware of the infiltration of these social media movements by disinformation agents of the state who post utterly unfounded and irrational statements in the aftermath of these atrocities.
These are obviously intended to undermine the moderate, considered sceptical voices by portraying them as supporters of some kind of lunatic fringe.
Not all of those who will make unfounded claims about the Nice truck attack are agents of the deep state. Many are simply ill-informed individuals with confirmation biases and strong political views. This is the nature of social media.
However, despite the impression given by the mainstream media (MSM), the fact is that such people do not represent the majority within, what the MSM call, “the truth movement.”
The vast majority of critical thinkers base their opinions upon evidence. This evidence is often hard to find, requires a significant investigatory effort to uncover and is seldom, if ever, aired by the MSM
There is nothing “intellectually lazy” about the views of people who question the state’s official narrative of events.
In my experience, despite the broad swath of political opinion, there is perhaps a single unifying hope of the majority of moderate critical thinkers.
It is simply the hope that people will question the propaganda that they are being subjected to. that they will actively seek peace and understanding rather than blindly support the perpetual conflict advocated by those who support the so called “war on terror.”
Yet, given the mass disinformation of the mainstream media, its use by geopolitical forces as a propaganda tool, the “truth movement” will never get its message out to the wider public unless it unites in some way.
The problem is that those who exercise their scepticism are not unified in any way. There is a collective need to find a spokesperson or form a single, coherent group of critical thinkers who can stand behind a unifying statement.
I do not know who these individuals could be and would welcome any suggestions. Nor do I know what any unified statement should or could be.
However I have ventured a suggestion, as an example of the kind of position I am referring to.
Perhaps it could be something like this?
- We wish to extend our deepest condolences to those harmed in any and all acts of political violence. Our thoughts are with all innocent victims and their loved ones.
- Experience, research and evidence lead us to the conclusion that the mainstream media are not a reliable source of information, especially in regard to any apparent “terrorist” attack.
- Experience, research and evidence lead us to the conclusion that politicians are not a reliable source of information, especially in in regard to any apparent “terrorist” attack.
- We have evidence that suggests that the “war on terror” is a part of a plan to achieve a one world government (sometimes referred to as the New World Order.) This evidence points to the mass manipulation of populations through the use of orchestrated acts of political violence (terrorism) and the dissemination of political propaganda through the mainstream media.
- We have evidence that supports the following statements:
- Some terrorist attacks are genuine acts of political violence perpetrated solely and independently by individuals and/or groups who believe violence is warranted. We wholeheartedly reject any such belief.
- Some terrorist attacks are acts of political violence which are supported, facilitated and manipulated by governmental and supra governmental organisations, often against their own populations. These repeatedly occur through the use of proxies. We call such attacks “false flags” or “acts of sponsored terrorism.” They are designed to promote the centralisation of power and the erosion of civil liberties.
- Some events, reported as terrorist attacks, are complete frauds. We call these “hoaxes.” These are media events only and often no individuals are harmed. These are staged by governmental and supra governmental organisations working closely with media assets that they control. These are pure propaganda. The aim of this propaganda is to promote the centralisation of power and the erosion of civil liberties.
- We hereby commit to thoroughly research all available evidence. We are open minded critical thinkers who reserve the right to suspend judgement until the evidence can be investigated thoroughly. We hereby commit to bring this evidence to light whenever we can in the hope that people will be better informed.
- We logically reject any and all claims or statements made by any politician, media analyst or spokespersons who suggest that a terrorist attack provides justification to retaliate with further acts of political violence, such as the bombing of civilian populations. We wholeheartedly reject any and all acts of political violence.
- We logically reject any and all claims or statements made by any politician, media analyst or spokespersons who suggests that a terrorist attack provides justification to erode civil liberties, such as curtailing freedom of expression, increased censorship or the mass surveillance of their own population. We wholeheartedly reject any and all erosion of our hard won civil liberties.
I’d be really interested to hear from any who would be like to attempt to form such a unified statement or who can point me towards anyone already doing so.
I would also like all critical thinkers (like me), concerned about the possible manipulation of events, such as the Nice truck attack, to consider the following questions.
Who are we?
How do we speak with one voice?
What is our message?
Please let me know what you think.